The promise of AlphaFold for gene structure annotation
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Most new genomes lack annotation, automated methods are error-prone, and few genomes are ever manually curated due to time and cost. Protein structure predictions may offer a new route to assess and improve gene models without requiring experimental data. Here, we explore whether scores from protein structure prediction can aid in scoring gene model quality. We chose three species (Fusarium graminearum, Toxoplasma gondii, and Aspergillus fumigatus) from the VEuPathDB database that have collectively undergone more than 1000 manual curation events. We modelled translations of the gene models with AlphaFold 3, before and after curation, collecting various scores. Then we carried out structure searching of the PDB with Foldseek and sequence-based domain identification using InterProScan. We profiled the scores produced by these methods to identify those best for gene model assessment. AlphaFold 3 scores strongly favoured manually improved over pre-improvement gene models, supporting 65–84% of manually-curated changes. Combining scores across multiple tools (AlphaFold 3, Foldseek and InterProScan) provided further improvements in model scoring. Overall, the most discriminative scores combined the outputs of AlphaFold 3 and Foldseek. Importantly, we find that scores from the much faster Protenix-Mini retain the same discriminatory power as those from AlphaFold 3. Our results, therefore, highlight the potential of scores derived from deep learning-based protein structure prediction for scoring gene models in the absence of experimental data.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Programs like AlphaFold 3 have revolutionised protein structural bioinformatics by enabling fast, accurate modelling of most proteins [ 20 –22 ].”
Varadi, M., Bertoni, D., Magana, P., Paramval, U., Pidruchna, I., Radhakrishnan, M., Tsenkov, M., Nair, S., Mirdita, M., Yeo, J., et al. (2024) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkad1011 · Cited by 2,052 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, Foldseek was only informative for folds currently observed in the PDB. Future work could explore extending the search to TED (The Ency-clopedia of Domains; [ 47 ]), which captures and classifies re-curring domains in the AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [ 48 ].”
AlphaFold and Implications for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins
Ruff, K. M., & Pappu, R. V. (2021) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2021.167208 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
PSAURON: a tool for assessing protein annotation across a broad range of species
Sommer, M. J., Zimin, A. V., & Salzberg, S. L. (2025) · NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/nargab/lqae189 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Davison, H. R., Böhme, U., Mesdaghi, S., Wilkinson, P. A., Roos, D. S., Jones, A. R., & Rigden, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jones, Andrew R
- Rigden, Daniel J
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-04-23
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- PMC
- PMC13107130
- OpenAlex
- W4415409745
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 4.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (218288/A/19/Z, 302692/Z/23/Z, 212929/A/18/Z)
- University of Liverpool's
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- AlphaFold3, gene model annotation, protein structure prediction, manual curation, Fusarium graminearum, Toxoplasma gondii, Aspergillus fumigatus, VEuPathDB, Foldseek, InterProScan, domain identification, fungal genome
- MeSH terms
- Aspergillus fumigatus, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Software, Toxoplasma, Databases, Protein, Molecular Sequence Annotation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review